Tula Primers...What's your experience?

I bought a 1000 ct box of Tula small pistol primers at a gun show for $16. I thought for the money I would try them. My first test with them today, 50 rounds of 9mm, I had one fail to fire. I tried 3 times to get it to fire, it is doa. Anyone else use these primers? Should I expect 2% failure rate in the rest of them? Anyone want to buy 950 Tula small pistol primers?

I never tried Tula, but I believe Wolf is the same thing. I haven't had any trouble with Wolf LP primers except a few that didn't ignite light loads of Enforcer. Upping the charge took care of that.

4895

December 11, 2011, 05:48 AM

It's kinda funny that in all the ammo I have loaded, this is the first and only time where a primer failed. I will try the other 50 primers and if any fail, I will reserve them for the 'zombie horde' only. Of course, that won't work either as I would be eaten before I could mag, bump, tap, mag, slide, shoot my way out of a ftf.

eam3clm@att.net

December 11, 2011, 09:31 AM

Now aboutthe only thing that I use in SP is Tula primers. I have read that there was a production run that had issues but I cannot remember the details, but it seems that the color of the primer was the way to tell (brass/nickle color). In my expierence they seem to be a good primer. I did a velocity test compairson with them and some CCIs and their velocity ranged within the extreame spread of the CCIs. They can be a little harder to seat.

mgmorden

December 11, 2011, 09:36 AM

What type of gun did you try in? Depending on hardness you might get some that won't go bang in a gun with a weaker firing pin impact.

In any event, I'd say just load up some more and see how they do. If you get anymore duds just reserve them for practice usage. Save the ones that don't go bang, pull em, and reload them again.

Thankfully its only 1000 of them. If you'd bought 10k+ it probably would have been a bit more heartbreaking :D.

kingmt

December 11, 2011, 09:46 AM

I've only used a few thousand but no problems. I prefer them over others I've used.

You tried 50 & had 1 ftf now decide there is a 2% failure rate. I you are ready to make that conclusion on that small of a sample I bet you haven't even looked to see what you did wrong. If your not willing to take the time to cover all the bases or to even check a larger sample then your statement doesn't hold much credit.

It is way more likely you did something wrong. By my sample of 3-4K with 0% failure rate & you have a 2% makes it look like you don't know what you're doing. Just based off the information you have given.

gamestalker

December 11, 2011, 09:52 AM

I think I would have to agree with you that it seems odd that until using these you never experienced any FTF's. I've been loading for 3+ decades and have yet to experience one single FTF. Your shared experience is just about enough information for me to not ever consider trying them, of course unless the big boys decided to stop selling them to reloader's.

zxcvbob

December 11, 2011, 10:07 AM

The old brass-colored Wolf primers were the best I've ever used. Then Wolf nickel plated them and people started having trouble with misfires because they were too hard (or possibly too tight and they just thought they were too hard) Wolf acknowledged there was a problem with one lot of primers.

Fast-forward a year or two. I bought a bunch of Tula primers; I got Tula instead of Wolf to make sure I didn't get that bad lot. They were nickel (no surprise.) I was having lots of misfires with them, but they would go off with a 2nd strike. Every once in a while it would take 3 strikes. I put them aside; they'll probably be just fine for loading 9mm and 9mm Mak. Well now the gun that was getting misfires with the Tula primers is even misfiring Federals! It wasn't the primers (maybe) it was the gun. I've ordered a new main spring for it, and everything I just said except the very first sentence is inconclusive. Actually that's the point.

Tula primers are great, if your gun will pop them. I also really like Wolf SR primers to use as magnum pistol primers.

amlevin

December 11, 2011, 10:11 AM

I've been using Wolf and Tula primers for several years and haven't had any issues with failure to fire. Of course all my firearms have stock firing pins/springs and give the primers a good "smack".

As for difficulty seating, they're no more problem there than CCI's.

bds

December 11, 2011, 10:13 AM

I have read that there was a production run that had issues but I cannot remember the details, but it seems that the color of the primer was the way to tell (brass/nickle color).
Not sure if other lots had similar ignition issues but my Tula SP primer lot number of 20-10 (I am thinking production year 2010 and batch #20) I bought earlier this year is continuing to have ignition issues. Yes, they were properly hand primed and seated to .004" below flush and failed to ignite even after multiple primer strikes (Glock primer cup indentations were deep).

These primers ignited, but show depths of primer indentations.
http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=154533&stc=1&d=1323616229

kingmt, I do agree about your sample size comment and have shot over 20,000 Wolf, Tula, PMC (all Russian) primed cases and Tula SP nickle/chrome colored primers have been the only primers that I have experienced failure to ignite even after multiple primer strikes (Wolf LP, Tula LP and PMC SP are all brass/bronze colored and I have not experienced any failure to ignite with them). Even larger sample size of 300,000+ reloads using Winchester/CCI primers and small sample of 10,000 Magtech primers have not produced any consistent failure to ignite like these Tula SP primers. Maybe the problem has been addressed on newer lot # primers?
http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=154534&stc=1&d=1323616229

lono

December 11, 2011, 10:43 AM

I have shot 2000 Tula small pistol primers in 9mm with no problems. Fired in M9 and 1911.

MrWesson

December 11, 2011, 11:36 AM

3000 here and I did have problems..

they seem larger than some other primers and take a good bit of force to seat. I guess I just didn't have the guts to bang them in there.

My failure rate was about 1 out of 100 and most of the failed primers weren't seated correctly.

codefour

December 11, 2011, 12:27 PM

I recentlybought 5,000 Tula SPP and LPP from Powder Valley Inc. They do take a bit more force to seat but the amount of force will be greatly reduced if you CLEAN the primer pockets prior to seating.

I have only fired a little over a thousand of Tula SPP and LPP combined but I have not had any FTF as of yet (knock on wood).

kingmt

December 11, 2011, 12:36 PM

I ram prim & have no problems with them. I had all kinds of problems with CCI & RCBS dies that took me years to find I was had crimped 9mm brass in the mix. I can't say that was the problem all that time but I can say I haven't had the problem since I started looking for crimped primers.

Maj Dad

December 11, 2011, 01:02 PM

Until I bought some MagTech primers during the Great Obamanation Hoarding, I could count the number of FTFs for rifle & pistols over 40 years on one hand & still pick my nose. I have had a half-dozen with the MagTechs & will not buy more. :mad:

crimsoncomet

December 11, 2011, 05:29 PM

I so far have really liked Tula primer. I have used them in a colt 1911 10mm and my 686 357 mag. They ARE TERRIBLE to seat. So far everyone goes bang if you make sure to do your part on seating. The biggest thing is to inspect them for the anvils missing. I haven't found any yet. But have heard of guys who have.

floydster

December 11, 2011, 05:30 PM

GOOD!!!

medalguy

December 11, 2011, 05:40 PM

I've loaded probably more than 50,000 Wolf primers and never had a failure yet. They are a slight bit oversized and may be a bit harder to seat than some other primers but that's not a real problem. Some of the cups are a little harder than US made primers but in an autoloader that's a distinct advantage. I like them.

4895

December 11, 2011, 06:35 PM

To KingMT, I was being slightly sarcastic in my comment, "Should I expect a 2% failure rate?" In no way should you interpret this as a scientific statement on my part.

I don't keep a 'round count' as to how much i reload or to compare johnsons, but I have been reloading successfully for almost 5 years now and should know how to seat a primer.

I was using one of my dillon presses with 9mm cases, 6.3 grains of BLUEDOT and 124 grain ARMSCOR fmj bullets. The pistol was a Glock 19 that has about 40,000 rounds through it. I was working up a new load with my standard (Remington primers) for someone else when I thought I would try these Tula primers (had them for a few weeks). I feel I cannot load with these primers for someone else's target practice with a failure so soon. Yes, I know it could be a fluke or the only one or maybe I soaked the primers in used motor oil. Maybe my clumbsy hands put the primers in wrong, sideways, not far enough, upside down, or just on the wrong day at the wrong time, but I think they are junk primers. Most things made in Russia are junk and probably contaminated with fallout from Chernobyl. I thank you all for your replies and am glad I am not the only one who has had some problems with Tula components. For cheap $$ I thought I would try them. Guess I will stick with what I know I can trust. Good day to you all.

kingmt

December 11, 2011, 07:06 PM

I fell fell very different about Russian engering. Having known & worked with several I have learned they are very good. It was hard for them to get parts that we normaly just change so they built or rebuilt the old parts. One of my buddies told me about rebuilding tie rod ends that only cost about $5 at the time. He was very persise at everything he did.

I don't have much built in Russia but what I have had good.

SlamFire1

December 11, 2011, 07:34 PM

I was using one of my dillon presses with 9mm cases, 6.3 grains of BLUEDOT and 124 grain ARMSCOR fmj bullets. The pistol was a Glock 19 that has about 40,000 rounds through it.

I believe these Russian primers are less sensitive than American primers. This is actually good for mechanisms with free floating firing pins as the probablity of a firing pin initated slamfire is less. Less sensitive primers tend to have thick cups, which don't pierce as easily as "more" sensitive primers.

People with worn out mechanisms, old mainsprings, or coil cutters, will have ignition issues with less sensitive primers.

Your pistol has a lot of rounds through it. Have you thought of installing a new mainspring/striker spring? Weak mainsprings will give ignition problems.

I have a M586 revolver that the owner claimed he had fired 40,000 148 LWC, 2.7 grs Bullseye and Federal primers. He was a competitive PPC shooter. I had squibs in cold weather with ball powders. Ignition was so weak, I had to beat the bullet out of the barrel throat with a screwdriver. Primers looked well wacked.

Re: Tight fit....I've only noticed that on the LP Primers on my varied 45 ACP Brass. The 308 and 40 posed no appreciative difference in seating. I hand prime using an RCBS Hand Primer. The 308 Brass was all Lake City and the 40 was varied. I set them aside when issues starting showing up here on this site and others as well

As I recall Wolf initially was exchanging/refunding based on the word of the reloader and ceased doing so when they found people were ripping them off. Anybody else remember that?

I've found reloaders to be among the most honest of people, almost to a fault. So yeah I took the above as being suspect. That said, I have been cheated on online deals on GunBroker and Ebay and Auction Arms as well. Most of my purchases are online, so it works out to about 1 in a thousand which I think is better than the average out there.

GLOOB

December 11, 2011, 11:57 PM

Tula SPP are slightly longer than Rem/CCI/Win primers. And the end of the cup is more rounded. So if you seat them too hard/deep, you can damage them.

bds

December 12, 2011, 04:13 AM

Tula SPP are slightly longer than Rem/CCI/Win primers. And the end of the cup is more rounded. So if you seat them too hard/deep, you can damage them.
I am not seeing the difference in cup lengths or able to measure them using the caliper. I think you might be measuring how far the anvil feet are sticking below the primer cups, but if you look at the comparison picture below, Tula anvil feet are actually deeper in the cup than Winchester. I did however measured the cup diameters and they were all 0.175".

If you look close at the primers, you'll notice that Winchester and Magtech anvil feet stick out more than Tula or PMC primers. If the primers were seated to the same depth of .004" below flush and if the priming compounds were filled to anvil preset depths, this may set the anvil closer/deeper in Winchester/Magtech primers than Tula/PMC primers and perhaps explain why some reloaders are experiencing failure to ignite with Tula SP primers. If the nickel plated Tula SP primer cup is harder, then it will add to the primer ignition issue also. You may ask why I have not experienced primer failures with PMC. Fair question, but that is explained by softer brass cup of PMC SP NT (non-toxic) primers.

I still do not have a definitive "root cause" as to why I am experiencing occasional primer ignition failure with Tula SP primers and not with other SP primers (including Russian PMC SP primers) using the same pistols (G17/G22/G27/M&P40). I have even tried using same head stamp once-fired cases hand primed to the same depth of .004" below flush.

I am thinking about removing the anvil next and checking if there is any difference in anvil shape that contacts the priming compound and measuring the depth of priming compound in the cup.

Well, I actually measured against a CCI primer. It might even have been a CCI 400 SRP. Maybe that's the difference. It measured a fraction of a thous smaller in diameter than the CCI. (My caliper only measures the nearest half a thou, and it was half a thou smaller on the few I measured.) And the cup, not feet, was longer. I can't recall how much, but it want to say it was by 2 thou. I could actually tell by looking at them side-by-side without the calipers.

However, you CAN see the more rounded cup in your pics. I believe that makes the Tula primer start to flatten/crush easier than the other primers I've used, regardless of relative cup length. So if you have a tight enough primer pocket, you could conceivably start to crush the cup before the primer seats all the way. Or if you seat too deep, you could also crush a primer.

After reading over and over how you can seat a primer too shallow but not too deep, I always erred on the deep side. That was until I had 2 failures to ignite with a Glock, using Tulammo primers. When I measuered the depth of the badly flattened primers, I measured 0.015"! Oops! I happened to prime this batch as the first batch after doing several hundred CCI SRP's which are a lot harder to seat; I guess I was a bit heavy handed on the lever.

Aside from paying more attention to the seating feel, I also concaved the priming arm on my press just a hair, to hold the Tula primers with more support.

Now, the only gun that doesn't like 'em is my Ruger GP100 in DA mode. I get maybe 1% failures there. Everything else pops them without fail.

bds

December 12, 2011, 11:19 PM

Well, I think I may have some interesting update.

I removed the anvils from the four primers (yes, I exercised care and wore eye/face protection using a dental pick) to inspect and see if there was any difference between them. As you can see in the pictures, there were some variations in anvil tip shape and height.

What I did find interesting was this. Winchester and Magtech priming compounds remained solid and stayed inside the primer cups intact when I removed the paper cups that rests on top of the anvil tips. Even when I scratched the priming compounds with the dental pick, the priming compounds were solid. But Tula and PMC priming compounds turned to powder when I removed the anvil/paper cups. If priming compounds are supposed to remain solid inside the cup, this may shed some light. I am planning to remove the anvils in my CCI BR2, Wolf LP, Tula LP/LR/SR/.223 primers to see whether the priming compounds inside the cup are solid or powder.

I've been through 5k Wolf and about 8k Tula SPP. I find they work 100% in stock guns (Glocks and M&P in my case), and not so much in guns with aftermarket triggers/lightened springs.

For anyone having issues with them, I'd check:

1) Make sure they are seated deep enough
2) Make sure your mainspring/striker spring is stock, and if it happens to have 40k rounds on it, it might be due for a replacement anyway.

bds

December 13, 2011, 10:42 AM

ny32182, I thought that too. My G17/G22/G27/M&P40 are all stock with no modification and leaving deep striker indentations on the primer cups. Tula SP primers were tested in hand primed cases with primers seated .004" below flush.

The reason why I am continuing to investigate Tula SP failing to ignite is that I have not experienced such failure to ignite with any other primers I have used, including Tula LP/LR/SR/.223, Wolf LP and PMC SP which all have ignited without any failure.

I had consistent failures to ignite with Tula SPP in my striker fired guns. Stock striker spring. No issues in revolvers.

No problems with the LPP in my striker fired 45s.

zxcvbob

December 13, 2011, 10:55 AM

I was getting nice deep firing pin hits in the primers and still having misfires -- even on the second strike, and in one case the 3rd -- with my stock S&W 15. I put the same ammo in my Ruger and every one fired including the one with 3 prior hits.

I concluded that the primers were contributing to the problem, but the problem really lies with the gun. And the deep dents in the primers were not as good an indicator as I tho't.

I wish I could still find those brass-colored Wolf SP primers. I really like them and I don't have many left.

I had consistent failures to ignite with Tula SPP in my striker fired guns. Stock striker spring. No issues in revolvers.
Are you shooting the revolvers double-action or SA?

Hondo 60

December 13, 2011, 11:32 AM

I bought 5k Tula SPP back in August.
About 1/2 of them are gone.

I've had about a 1% failure rate - (Lot number 32-10)
where the firing pin strike looks as good as any other round
but the round doesn't fire.

And as previously reported by a number of others,
they're very tight, so they're harder to seat than CCI, Win, Rem etc.

In that same order I bought 1k Wolf LPP.
They're all gone & fired 100%
No issues at all.

Hammerdown77

December 13, 2011, 11:48 AM

I was getting nice deep firing pin hits in the primers and still having misfires -- even on the second strike, and in one case the 3rd -- with my stock S&W 15. I put the same ammo in my Ruger and every one fired including the one with 3 prior hits.

I concluded that the primers were contributing to the problem, but the problem really lies with the gun. And the deep dents in the primers were not as good an indicator as I tho't.

I wish I could still find those brass-colored Wolf SP primers. I really like them and I don't have many left.

Are you shooting the revolvers double-action or SA?
Mostly single, although I did run about 100 rounds through in DA mode. I had two fail to fire in double action mode, but I believe that was due to a slightly backed out strain screw on my Smith 686.

GLOOB

December 13, 2011, 12:18 PM

BDS, your striker indents may have indeed appeared deep to you on, but those pics don't tell us anything. Those actually fired.

Keep my experience in mind, and make sure you're not seating these primers too hard. If your pockets are tight, they might work better if you ream them, first.

When that rounded tip of the primer crushes down before (or after) the primer seats, You risk turning the priming compound into the powder you just discovered. And trust me, it's possible to seat a primer too deep, despite the common wisdom.

Tula SP primers were tested in hand primed cases with primers seated .004" below flush.
I have thrown this bit of common wisdom out the window. When I feel the primer seat, that's how deep I leave it, as long as it's at least flush.

Now, all this said, have I ever had a single failure with a CCI or Win primer? No. Have I ever had a failure with Wolf LPP? No. Do I still get occasional light strikes in my Ruger GP100 in DA mode? Yes. But the Tulammo SPP primers have been 100% reliable in my other handguns once I learned how to seat them. I've been through around 3k.

And as previously reported by a number of others,
they're very tight, so they're harder to seat than CCI, Win, Rem etc.
Well, a number of others are also reporting them no tighter/harder to seat than CCI. I'm one of 'em. So this is either a difference between lots or a difference in priming technique. Wolf LPP? Definitely harder to seat for me (but 0 failures).

bds

December 13, 2011, 01:50 PM

These were pictures of new primers that weren't seated in cases and both Tula and PMC primers had powdery priming compounds under the paper cups.

I already pulled the bullets/primers from cases that failed to ignite so don't have the pictures to post, but will post them when I do.

GLOOB, I don't crush the Tula primer cups when I hand prime them .004" below flush or even flatten the top of primer cups. Can you post a picture of your crushed primers?

Thanks.

kingmt

December 13, 2011, 03:26 PM

BDS

Do you pull the fireing pin out to clean. The only problem I know of with a Glock is that carbon buids up between the slid & pin causeing a FTF. Glock isn't my favorite gun but there is little to go wrong. I see a lot of FTF at the range because the guys don't clean there guns where they need to. It would ruin my day if I had a malfunction while trying to keep my job for another year. There is enough pressure without problems.

I would rather see the primers that failed myself. You just can't tell much from a fired case other then it fired.

foolsgold80z

December 13, 2011, 03:57 PM

I bought 2000 ea Tula sp and lp. No problems to report. I have not used them in a striker fired pistol however.

bds

December 13, 2011, 05:22 PM

I am a strong proponent of keeping the striker tube free of hard caking that builds up at the bottom where the rectangle opening allows the striker to poke through (other side of breach face). I can inspect the striker channels to see if there is any build up (I recently did that on my G17 for another thread, but I can check them all again tonight).

To rule out the striker related concern, I will start shooting some Tula SP primers in my Sig 1911 using small primer 45 cases. If I continue to experience similar failure to ignite issues, we can rule that out. If I don't experience any failure with the 1911, then we would affirm that issue.

Great suggestions.

kingmt

December 13, 2011, 06:21 PM

I remember you telling me about a year ago to look at everything again & study the problem something will show up. I was having issues with my new pro1000. I tracked it back to a RCBS die that I was already having problems with for years. Later I found the die wasn't the problem I was the problem. I told myself hay dummy that Luger brass has crimped primers.

Anyhow the problem isn't always where it seems. I only know this short fall of the Glock because I make my living with it & seen it way to many times. Actually the short fall is the trainers telling them not to take it apart because it never needs cleaned there.

Most guys will never put enough rounds through one to see a problem but I like my job & practice so I'm sure to score a JOB. I know you go through a lot of rounds yourself.

GLOOB

December 13, 2011, 06:29 PM

GLOOB, I don't crush the Tula primer cups when I hand prime them .004" below flush or even flatten the top of primer cups. Can you post a picture of your crushed primers?
I posted them in another thread, back when it happened. Can't seem to find them, ATM.

Suffice it to say they were nearly completely flattened and measured 0.012-0.018" deep*, depending on which side was measured. There were around 0.015" in the center. The primer strikes looked a bit shallow, so I dunno if the primers were ruined or if they were just too deep to get a good strike. Comparison with the rest of my unfired ammo from the same batch (which all fired, next outing) showed that these two were indeed the deepest seated primers of the bunch. All the primers were flattened, with an average of around 0.009-0.010" depth at center. There were others as much as 0.011-0.013" in the center, and they fired fine.

For "science" I primed one Tulammo primer as hard as I could, then decapped it. It looked like a fancy breath mint. :)

Unless you use a primer pocket uniformer on all your brass, I can't imagine how you can seat them all to the exact same depth, and for them to all be correct. Some would end up seated too shallow and/or some would get slightly flattened. I had some older R-P .38 brass where the primer is still sticking out when a Tulammo primer (or more accurately, one of MY Tulammo primers, which apparently are longer than the OPs?) is completely seated. It was really thin, tired brass, anyway, so I scrapped it.

* The uneven seating is another bowl of peanuts, which apparently is a result of the shellholder allowing the brass to tilt a little towards the opening, which is made worse when doing 9mm (since it shares a shellholder with 40SW). I ended up recontouring my priming arm to be slightly concave, to better follow the contour of the Tulammo primer, and also slightly shortened one side of the priming face to give it a bit of tilt. Enough for a compromise to make the seating more even when priming 9mm with the shellholder oriented in the direction I keep it while priming, but not enough to make 40SW or other calibers to be over-corrected. This was as simple as taping the spring loaded guide down and taking a diamond ball tipped engraving bit to the priming surface.

bds

December 14, 2011, 10:07 AM

Unless you use a primer pocket uniformer on all your brass, I can't imagine how you can seat them all to the exact same depth, and for them to all be correct.

The uneven seating is another bowl of peanuts, which apparently is a result of the shellholder allowing the brass to tilt a little towards the opening, which is made worse when doing 9mm (since it shares a shellholder with 40SW).

Primed some 9mm, 40S&W and 45ACP cases with Tula SP primers to include the dreaded tight primer pocket S&B case (you can see from the picture that the cup is flatter than other cases as it took more effort to seat it).

The primer pockets were cleaned just with paper towel (nothing was done to the primer pockets) and cases were hand primed using Lee XR (9mm and 40S&W cases used the same #19 Auto Prime shell holder and 45ACP case used #2 shell holder) and seated to about .004" below flush.

I bought two thousand of those worthless primers.
About 6% failure in my S&W 627, S&W Airweight .38 special and Charter Arms .357 mag.
Also approximately 2% failure in M&P 9mm and a Ruger LCP 380 auto.
The last 400 of them are in a quart can of used motor oil to be drained and dumped in a tamarac swamp.

kingmt

December 14, 2011, 03:38 PM

Why would you not just give them to someone that wanted them. I prefer Tula over all that I have used.

SlamFire1

December 14, 2011, 04:14 PM

I have thrown this bit of common wisdom out the window. When I feel the primer seat, that's how deep I leave it, as long as it's at least flush.

I am starting to agree with you.

Found in the American Rifleman, that Frankford Arsenal set their primers flush to minus .005".

I have reamed pockets to depth, conventional wisdom was that it was the best practice. Now I am finding that maximum depth reamed pockets don't work in all my rifles.

This one did not ignite in my M70 and wasted that interval I used waiting for the wind conditions to settle at 600 yards. :cuss:

I received Tulas LP, SP, when I ordered Wolf, same thing I guess. about 1 out of 200 fail to ignite even with repeated firing pin hits. They are harder to seat than winchesters.

I only bought them durring the Obama Panic of 2008, as others were not availible. when they are gone I will NEVER order them wolf or any of the other names they go under again. They are less relaible and Harder to seat.

wally

December 14, 2011, 05:44 PM

Most of my brass is past the "once fired" stage so a little extra tightness doesn't hurt.

Hondo 60

December 14, 2011, 09:47 PM

One thing I'm concerned about, is that since Tulas are harder to seat, will that affect my brass?

If I go back to CCI, Win, Rem, etc, are my primer pockets going to be too loose?

Master Blaster

December 15, 2011, 08:46 AM

Most of my brass is past the "once fired" stage so a little extra tightness doesn't hurt.

Its tight in my 14x fired batches, and in my once fired, its tighter and Harder to seat than any other primers I have used. It Hurts when you have to lean all your weight against the press handle to seat them flush.

JMHO YMMV

kingmt

December 15, 2011, 09:02 AM

I agree with that statement but I started ram priming. I've even poped them past crimped pockets. Ops, wrong cases.

GLOOB

December 15, 2011, 08:50 PM

It Hurts when you have to lean all your weight against the press handle to seat them flush.
That's really surprising to hear. I have no problems seating them, at all. As I stated earlier, if I throw all my weight on one, I turn it into a pancake..

I bought two thousand of those worthless primers.
About 6% failure in my S&W 627, S&W Airweight .38 special and Charter Arms .357 mag.
Also approximately 2% failure in M&P 9mm and a Ruger LCP 380 auto.
The last 400 of them are in a quart can of used motor oil to be drained and dumped in a tamarac swamp.
I can believe this. My Ruger GP100 also doesn't like 'em in DA mode.

I don't think it's cuz of a quality control issue, though. Not that high a percentage. Nor do I think the cups are harder. The cups are quite soft, IME. I think the priming compound is just a little more stable. This isn't necessarily a bad thing. It all depends on what guns you shoot. Many revolver shooters prefer Federals because they're MORE sensitive than average. Choose the right primer for the job, and you won't be disappointed.

jacksgd

December 15, 2011, 09:38 PM

I agree with you GLOOB.
I have no problems with Federal small pistol in any of the revolvers that I have.
I've had such a small percent of failures with Federal, Winchester or CCI in any of my semi autos pistols that it's not even worth mentioning.

I must say that I have had nothing but good results using Wolf large pistol in my 45 acp's.

But again, I must say that as far as Tula primers go, they are not worth the headache and frustations that go with their higher than the norm failure to fires!!!

GLOOB

December 15, 2011, 11:54 PM

Well, I'm not sure that you agree, at all.

With all my guns except for my Ruger, Tulammo SPP are pretty much 100%. Since they're only $20 per 1k, and I don't have any headaches or frustration with them, they're well worth it to me. Even with my Ruger, failures are rare enough I don't worry about it at the range. When I load my Ruger for SD, I just use factory ammo. Every other handgun that takes SPP is loaded with Tulammo primered ammo both at the range and when it counts. This includes my other revolver, which is a 686. I've put probably 500-600 of these reloads through that particular gun without a hiccup. Over 1500 through a G19, no issues aside from my learning mistake.

bds

December 17, 2011, 11:34 PM

This is a follow-up to post #26 (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=7794378#post7794378) and post #40 (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=7797440#post7797440).

My C-H 205 single stage press got some workout today as all the cases were resized/loaded in single stage mode and hand primed in Lee XR hand primer to the depth of about .004" below flush (primer pockets were cleaned but not modified). I loaded up some 9mm (mixed brass) and 45ACP (Federal small primer cases) with Tula SP primers and range tested them in Glock 17 and Sig 1911 TacPac.

I stopped the range test after 4 failure to fire in Glock 17. The rounds that did fire had deep primer indentations. I cycled the slide and refired 2 of the FTF rounds 3 times with still no primer ignition. Sig 1911 fired all the Tula SP primed Federal cases. My plan was to remove the single strike FTF primer from 9mm case and seat it in the Federal 45ACP case and restrike with the Sig 1911.

This is what once-struck Tula SP primer looked like (Interestingly enough, the case head stamp was PMC even :rolleyes::D). Pictures on the right show once-struck primer out of the PMC case clearly showing pink colored paper cup indicating the priming compound did not ignite.

I will conduct further testing of Tula SP primers in 9mm, 40S&W and 45ACP (small primer) cases, but this failure rate is not too promising for this lot number (20-10) primers. For those that have concern over Glock striker spring/fouling build up in the striker tube channel, they were checked prior to the range test and all of the cases primed with Winchester SP primers fired without failure using the same Glock 17.

Any comments or thoughts? Is there anything else you want me to test?

bds

December 18, 2011, 02:55 AM

Here are three primers that ignited next to the failed to ignite primer that's been struck multiple times in Glock and Sig 1911.

This is a picture of a CCI #34 that did not ignite. CCI #34's are "mil spec" and I have been reaming the primer pockets to depth. Never had a problem with my M1a's or Garands, but in my M70's, sometimes the combination of too deep and too hard and things don't go bang.

I have had American primers dud, even after repeated strikes. Bad primers happen.

American primers are very sensitive precisely because US makers don't like reading about how their primers are the problem, when most ignition problems are due to insufficient firing pin energy strike. People just don’t replace mainsprings, and many firearms are designed with insufficient ignition systems. In cold weather, I have experienced and so have a number of other shooters, mis fires with our Kimber M82 small bore match rifles. The ignition system was marginal when it left the factory and it has not gotten any better in time.

Military weapons tend to have robust ignition systems, Communist block designs especially so. Military primers are relatively insensitive because these mechanisms have heavy free floating firing pins which will slamfire with sensitive American primers. Federal match primers are the most slamfiring primer ever in Garands and M1a's. Sensitive American primers also pierce something awful, as I found with the redesigned, more sensitive brass colored WSR primers. I ate up a handful of AR15 firing pins at loads that never bothered the less sensitive nickle plated WSR.

This is an interesting read. Shows how little attention is spent in designing firearms with good ignition systems, for a number of very bad reasons.

IT DON’T GO BANG:
FIRES, HANGFIRES, MISFIRES AND SHORT ORDER COOKS IN JERSEY

BDS, put the misfired primer on the stove top, under a pan. If it goes bang, the priming compound is good.
Good idea. And yes, The Rifleman's Journal (http://riflemansjournal.blogspot.com/p/articles-index.html)website has some great information!

I used the side burner on the grill and two stainless steel bowls (they were garage solvent bowls and won't be used for food prep) to cook the primer. After several seconds, I heard the "POP".

It left a dent on the bottom bowl and smaller dent/gouge on the top bowl! :eek:
Use of good eye/face protection could not be stressed when handling/working with primers, even the ones considered "dud" like this Tula SP primer. ;)

That's too bad. I guess you just don't know for sure which guns are going to like a specific primer.

Still, if I did a lot of shooting (could save a lot of money on primers), I'd be tempted to do some more testing, seeing as they all fired in the 1911. Either a new striker spring, reexamine my striker channel cleanliness methods if not 100% sure, and/or my seating procedure.

I built a special jag for cleaning the bottom of the striker channel in my Glocks. Hammered the head of an appropriately big nail till it was square. Sharpened the edges so it'll hold the patch while twisting. Ground the face flat. Gave it a sharp corner on the back of the head to ensure it pulls the patch back out. Then stuck a wooden handle on it. Works a treat.

As for priming depth, I just measured the Tulammo primer depth in a sample of 10 from one of my recent batches of 9mm reloads. These are all Winchester brass. I seat on a SS press, press gently, stop when the primer bottoms out, then give a very gentle final squeeze. I have also modified my primer arm as mentioned in an earlier post.

All primers measure between 0.000" and 0.0025". More than half were 0.0015" or shallower. 4 of them were exactly 0.000". And many primers show small areas of flattening, even the ones that are just flush. What can I say? When they seat, I stop. And as mentioned before, MY Tuallmo SPP measure longer than MY CCI primers. I don't routinely measure my primer pocket depth. If I can set 'em on a flat surface and they don't wobble, they pass. I typically have to go back and reseat aobut 1 out of a 100 that is too long.

bds

December 18, 2011, 02:51 PM

I'd be tempted to do some more testing, seeing as they all fired in the 1911.
I agree and plan to do more testing with the 1911 using small primer 45ACP cases.

What puzzles me is this.

In the past 16 years of reloading over 300,000+ rounds of primarily 9mm/40S&W/45ACP reloads using various components and at times "sloppy" reloading practices using Pro 1000 presses and mostly Winchester/CCI primers (and on more limited basis with about 10K+ Magtech SP and 20K+ PMC SP/Wolf LP/Tula LP), I have not had this kind of consistent primer failure to ignite issues, ever.

Mind you, until I started hand priming my match cases, I used to seat Winchester primers to "crush depth" in dirty primer pockets where the cup was completely flat but they still fired. For "fair and objective" testing of Tula SP primers, I used single stage press and hand primed each case to .004" below flush after cleaning the primer pockets ... and they still failed to ignite, even after being struck multiple times in a 1911 to rule out any concern over striker/spring issue.

I built a special jag for cleaning the bottom of the striker channel in my Glocks.
Believe me, the Glock striker channels were inspected and cleaned to be sure until I even started to see shiny metal surface at the bottom of the channel. There was absolutely no fouling buildup at the bottom of the striker channel on the test Glock pistols.

That's too bad. I guess you just don't know for sure which guns are going to like a specific primer.
At this point, I am inclined to say that Tula SP primer failure issue is not gun related as Winchester SP primed 9mm cases I took to the range did not experience any failure using the same pistol (G17). But I will continue my range test with other pistols.

GLOOB

December 18, 2011, 03:08 PM

I think it IS gun related, at least in the sense I'm thinking. If it wasn't, then you'd have had failures in both guns. It could just be that the Tulammo priming compound needs a harder strike to light off than a Win SPP. I.e., some guns won't like this primer.

And putting a struck primer into the 1911 isn't the same as having a failure in the 1911. The first strike could potentially damage the primer, cracking the priming compound without igniting it? This might explain why they still popped off under heat.

bds

December 18, 2011, 03:37 PM

Yes, hence why I plan on doing more range test with 1911 using small primer 45 cases.

If I have no primer failure in 1911, then it will be gun-related (IMHO, I still think it's primer related :D).

If I have primer failure in 1911, then it will be the primer issue.

Still, since G22/G27 is my match/carry pistol combo, I won't use Tula SP in my match loads and Winchester SP will continue to be my designated SD/HD SP primer. To check if Tula addressed this issue on newer lot SP primers, I plan on buying a sample of newer lot SP primers in the future. If I do not have any issues in my Glocks, then it would be lot related.

I am not trying to put down Tula/Russian primers as I have not experienced any primer failure with Tula LP/LR/SR/.223, Wolf LP and PMC SP primers. My issue is only with Tula SP primers.

GLOOB

December 18, 2011, 03:42 PM

It certainly sounds like you're doing everything within spec. BDS. It might be a bad lot. But how's about you try 'em in your G22, too, just to be thorough? :evil:

Even the 2 light strikes I had with my Ruger GP100 in DA mode fired on the second strike. So that might be chalked up to a seating error.

Still, I'm thinking of trying Wolf SRP to save a few more bucks per K. PV carries those for only 15.50. :)

Hmm, here's a random thought. The PM Makarov has a free floating firing pin. Perhaps the Russians make their priming compound more stable for a practical reason.

bds

December 18, 2011, 03:58 PM

But how's about you try 'em in your G22, too, just to be thorough?
Yes, I had planned on loading some 40S&W loads also to shoot in G22 at the range yesterday, but I had to pickup a replacement kitchen door for the wife and didn't have enough time.

Just had a crazy thought - I "could" test some Tula SR/.223 primers in G17 (pistol I had misfires in) to see if the striker could ignite the harder primer cups. :D

I'll go load some in 9mm cases and fire them (primer only in case) in the garage. Be right back.

bds

December 18, 2011, 04:28 PM

Using the same PMC 9mm case I had Tula SP primer failure (to keep the test conditions the same ;)), I hand primed CCI 400 SR, Tula SR and Tula .223 primers and fired in the same Glock 17.

They all fired with very visible muzzle flash.

If you look closely at the picture, you'll notice that Tula SR and .223 primers left an imprint from the rectangle striker hole but the CCI SR primer cup did not. This may be due to hotter primer ignition of Tula SR/.223 primers than CCI SR, but may be also due to CCI cup being harder.

I dunno what to think. My only goal is to find what is cheapest and still works. Tula SPP work for me. So far, so good, anyway.

BTW, I shot 1k CCI400's through my handguns back when they were on crazy clearance sale. I had a couple light strikes in my 686, but they were 100% in my Glocks. I wish I had stocked up, esp now that I actually have a rifle to load for, too. This is what made me think of trying the Wolf SRP. Right now I am using Wolf .223 primers, which I thought might be too hard. But now that you've gone and done it, I may have to try them to see.

bds

December 18, 2011, 05:54 PM

If "Glock" striker could set those off, then ... :D

With the current economic condition, I hear ya. Why do you think I bought those Tula primers in the first place? However, I do reserve the CCI BR2 primers for more accurate .308 loads. As far as Wolf LP, Tula SR/.223/LR, they get my endorsement for the lot numbers I have been shooting.

I bought the Tula primers when they were cheaper. Now, even at Powder Valley, they are priced at $20/1K. With Winchester primers at $25 and CCI primers at $24, I plan on not buying Tula SP for now until I hear better performance reviews. I stocked up on Winchester primers when they were selling at $20/1K earlier this year at gun shows so I am good for a while. Perhaps, Tula SP issue may have resolve by then. :D

Master Blaster

December 19, 2011, 11:28 AM

When I use a primer in a handload I expect it to fire 100%. I don't care if it explodes when you heat it on a stove (seriously bad idea), hit it with a rock, or the Giant Monty Python Foot comes out of a cloud and stomps on it.
If it fails to fire in my guns that shoot other primers 100%, then my conclusion is the primer is defective, not my firearms, because it does not perform in the way it should be expected to perform.

The primer strikes shown on the Tula primers above is sufficient to set off a non defective primer.
My conclusion after experiencing failures with Wolf primers, and having them be harder to seat, is that I will not use them for anything other than practice ammo. I will not buy them again unless they are the only primers availible and I am out of other primers.

jacksgd

December 19, 2011, 03:52 PM

Absolutely Master Blaster!!

Go ahead and do all the test, comparisons and analyze compounds as much as you want (Something Tula should be doing). Please try and figure out why they have such a high failure rate and don't go bang when they are suppose to (not on a kitchen stove).

Bottom line is THEY DON'T GO BANG WHEN THEY ARE SUPPOSE TO!!

jdmudcat

December 19, 2011, 04:27 PM

Just want to share my experience with Tula SP primers.
I bought 1000 at a gun show to try out. I did notice they are harder to seat than the CCI's that I normaly use. After shooting several hundred through my .357 Blackhawk with no problems, I loaded up 50 rounds for my 38 special. (Charter undercover) The charter would only fire about 5 out of ten. I tried my wifes chick lady .38 and got about the same results.

I was able to run all the 38 rounds through my Blackhawk with no FTF's. Even the ones that did not fire in the Charters.

The FTF's in the charters would look like a light primer strike. Have shot thousands of CCI's through these guns and never had a misfire. My guess is it may take a stronger hammer spring to get the Tulas to go off.
I did not try the Tula primers in my 9mm or .380

Just my 2 cents worth.

JD

bds

December 19, 2011, 04:41 PM

jdmudcat, if the primer cup is harder, it would leave a lighter indentation and give the shooter the sense that it was a "light" primer strike. If another primer type load was fired with the same pistol, that would have verified whether the primer strike was light or not.

In the spirit of THR, my hope was to provide objective evaluation and root cause analysis as to why there was primer failure when I have not experienced such failure with other primer types of the same brand.

The steps I have taken to maintain consistency in primer pocket cleaning without modification, hand priming to seat primers to about .004" below flush, ensuring there is no compacted fouling at the striker channel bottom to limit striker travel and using a hammer fired 1911 should have provided Tula SP primers of lot 20-10 optimal conditions to ignite. The fact that application of heat ignited the failed primer that was struck multiple times indicated active priming compound inside the cup.

My comparison test of firing several rifle primers (especially of same Tula brand) showed the Glock striker was operating properly. The indentation left on CCI 400 SR primer cup (that ignited without leaving the typical Glock rectangle indentation) being similar to Tula SP primer cup after the first strike in Glock 17 indicated to me that the primer cup hardness of Tula SP may be the root cause of primer failure I am experiencing.

If this is not the case, I would love to hear them.

kingmt

December 19, 2011, 05:49 PM

When I bought my first Glock years ago it had several FTFs that I put in my Ruger which fired without a problem. I never checked anything & traded the gun off. I branded all Glocks as junk. It wasn't until I had to carry one for a living that I really looked at it & decided I liked it. Not that they are my favorite but a good choice.

If you aren't willing to look & find the problem then ether you don't know what your doing or just lazy. It is easier to just say brand X is junk. Those primers strikes look light to me but it is hard to tell from a picture. It could be a bad lot but it is more likely something is being done wrong or they just aren't a good match for the gun. I believe bds will find the root of it & has good credit with me if he believes they are bad. I've had tons of problems with CCI but after years of learning I think I was the problem. I own several Tarus that I know have light strikes but no problem with Tula so far.

I sent a Tarus back for repair not long ago for pinging on the breech face then read on here that NT primers cause this. Who would have thought? Things aren't always as they appear.

Walkalong

December 19, 2011, 06:16 PM

I have thrown this bit of common wisdom out the window. When I feel the primer seat, that's how deep I leave it, as long as it's at least flush.I seat primers hard. It is harder (Much harder, if not nigh on impossible.) to screw up a primer seating it too hard than it is to get a misfire from seating too shallow.

I agree though, as long as it is flush or deeper, and you felt it hit bottom solidly, it's OK.

I don't have any Tula's, but I did get a bad sleeve/box/pack/whatever we decided 100 was :rolleyes:, of Winchester primers. After several hammer strikes in two guns there were some that did not fire. Decapping them and hitting them with a hammer failed to set them off as well. Since that 100, I have had no more misfires using the same gun. First misfires in all my years of reloading.

USSR

December 19, 2011, 07:17 PM

I seat primers hard. It is harder (Much harder, if not nigh on impossible.) to screw up a primer seating it too hard than it is to get a misfire from seating too shallow.

+1.

Don

Seedtick

December 19, 2011, 09:30 PM

I believe bds will find the root of it & has good credit with me if he believes they are bad.

+1

bds, I'm paying close attention to your testing. I picked up ~ 14K Tula/Wolf primers back in the spring. I've only shot a few hundred of them, out of curiosity mainly, and they have each gone bang thus far.

I haven't shot nearly as much as a bunch of ya'll have but out of what I have shot I have only had 1 dud, excluding rimfire. It was a .270 Winchester load in Winchester brass and a Winchester large rifle primer I loaded for my son-in-law. We tried to pop it 8 or 9 times but got nothing. I thought it might not have had an anvil but it did. Other than the huge dent from the multiple strikes it looked like the new ones still in the box.

Seedtick

:)

bds

December 19, 2011, 11:25 PM

My concern is this.

Enough people have verified that they had failure to ignite issues with Wolf SP primers last year. I do realize that manufacturers may get material lots with varying levels of quality that could affect final product quality (it happens, and in this country, responsible manufacturers usually voluntarily recall those lots in question ;)). As far as I know, initially Wolf honored refunds/exchanges but later dropped that policy with the claim that too many customers were making false claims.

I could imagine that sales of Wolf SP (and perhaps other Wolf primers) may have seen a dip in sales because of this in 2010. Then early this year, we see a new brand of primers on the market labeled TulAmmo (and later we find that they were produced in the same plant in Russia :scrutiny:). I do not have any evidence to support this theory, but who's to say that early 2010 TulAmmo SP primers were those Wolf SP primers in question repackaged as TulAmmo SP primers? And I am only speaking of lot # 20-10 that I have in my possession as I do not have experience with other lots.

Now, many have posted that they don't have an issue with occasional primer misfires because they got a good price on them (say $15/1000) and the number of "dud" primers more than make up the difference in price. Based on my failure rate, I would have been better off buying $20/1000 Winchester primers earlier this year without the misfire issue (BTW, I did stock up well on those Winchester primers :)).

Here is my real concern with any primer with misfire issues. Let's say you are plinking at your favorite spot in the "woods" with Tula SP loads that you are experiencing misfires with. What if a four legged creature (or even a two legged creature ;)) threatens your life? Instead of your pistol going "bang", you hear "click". I do not want anyone I know to be in that situation. :eek: I guess a good insurance is to have a spare magazine full of reliable ammunition in your pocket or ammo pouch, but what if you don't get the chance to do a mag change? And still, you may have a round in the chamber that may not ignite, so to be 100% sure, you would have to eject that round and do a mag change/chamber a round ...

GLOOB

December 20, 2011, 12:00 AM

I seat primers hard. It is harder (Much harder, if not nigh on impossible.) to screw up a primer seating it too hard than it is to get a misfire from seating too shallow.
+1.
Y'all either haven't tried Tulammo SPP, or you're arthritic woosies. :) (j/k)

But seriously, seat one of these primers HARD and you end up with a pancake.

Now, granted. I used to seat my CCI primers HARD, following the advice of every other reloader out there. And never had a failure.

But I strongly suspect this tactic is not appropriate for the Tulammo SPP. I believe quite strongly that you CAN seat this primer too hard. If this makes them junk to you, then that's A-OK. More for me. :)

Seating these primers more gently hasn't caused me the slightest bit of grief. And when I look at my old reloads compared to factory ammo, it makes me wonder about the night and day different in primer appearance. If it's so impossible to seat a primer too deep, and seating too shallow is such an evil thing to avoid, then why does all my new factory ammo have nice, perfectly formed primers that aren't crushed the slightest bit and are barely flush?

And honestly, I don't get all the talk about the hard cups. These are some of the softer primers I've used. Sensitive, no, but soft, yes. I think this is one of the reasons why these primers are susceptible to damage from being seated too hard. The durn cup starts to deform before the primer even finishes seating half the time. I can feel it while seating, even. It's a squishy feeling compared to Win or CCI.

TheCracker

December 20, 2011, 06:20 AM

So far I've had 5-6 spp out of 1500 that didn't go off on the 1st strike by my Ruger sr9c. All of them went bang on the second try. They are harder so seat and I attribute that to not being seated all the way down. I like them for the price and will continue to use them for plinking loads as along as there is good savings.

Never had any problems out of cci or Winchester out of that gun so I would use Winchester 1st the cci for more serious uses.

Walkalong

December 20, 2011, 07:32 AM

seat one of these primers HARD and you end up with a pancakeThey must be very soft, but as long as they are priced higher than Wolf at PV, I won't be finding out.

USSR

December 20, 2011, 08:05 AM

Quote:
seat one of these primers HARD and you end up with a pancake

They must be very soft, but as long as they are priced higher than Wolf at PV, I won't be finding out.

Nah, the Tula's are the exact same primers as Wolf, made in the very same Russian factory. Somebody's got a problem with their primer seating tool or primer pockets if the primers come out flat as a pancake.

Don

bds

December 20, 2011, 09:18 AM

Here are some more primer seating depth and primer cup crush/flattening data for us to consider. I seated the following primers to the typical .004" below flush and .008" below flush that flattened the primer cups. The primers were hand primed using Lee XR priming tool with two thumbs and primer pockets were cleaned only without any modifications. (Yes, you can seat a primer to .010" below flush with the XR without the worry of handle breaking due to the heavier duty handle). Although subjective and personal, I will use a 10 point scale for "felt pressure" used to seat the primers with Winchester SP being 5.

FWIW, my seated Tula primers look like yours seated at .008" look. I don't think you were seating them deep enough at .004".

Don

GLOOB

December 20, 2011, 12:06 PM

Somebody's got a problem with their primer seating tool or primer pockets if the primers come out flat as a pancake.

Nah, my Breechlock is awesome and provides amazing leverage. I can turn any primer into a pancake, but Tula are some of the easiest.

FWIW, my seated Tula primers look like yours seated at .008" look. I don't think you were seating them deep enough at .004".
All these measurements are great and all, but how/why do you guys bother? When the primer bottoms, give an additional gentle squeeze. That's the right amount of depth/pressure/flattening. Tula requires a better feel, because the difference where the primer bottoms and the primer starts flattening can blur a little and might not even happen in that order. The amount your particular primer flattens when properly seated will vary based on the pocket tightness. So, for instance, my Tulamo primer depth on the batch of S&B brass I'm looking at right now varies from 0.001" to 0.007", and they're generally much more flattened than the same primers in another lot of WIN brass, which seated between 0.000-0.0025". I don't care how deep the primer goes, or how flat it gets. I'm not shooting for a certain depth or flatness, cuz primer pocket depth and tightness varies. Height of the primer may also vary. I stop when the primer is seated.

So I'm curious at BDS's methodology and the responses. If I'd a done a test, depth would have been a result rather than starting point. My info woulda been:

Instead, not one single mention of the primer actually seating, yet specific arbitrary depths are being tested, and amounts of requisite flattening are being recommended.

The hand primers all rave about increased feel, and here they're being used to get a specific depth? You would be just as well using an automated 10 ton hydraulic press if your goal is to get an arbitrary, static depth.

Seating all others with my RCBS? No. I just seat them fully 99% of the time. Occasionally there will be a combination of brass and primers I stop short of a full stroke on.

As long as you do not squash them to the point you disturb the priming mixture, they will go off.

All it takes is to be seated to the bottom of the PP, or a little more, and the priming mixture has not broken up or squeezed out between the cup and the anvil.

If that criteria is met, they will fire.

In bds's tests, it looks like some priming compound is tougher than others.

kingmt

December 20, 2011, 03:25 PM

bds
After you get done testing send me 200 of those primers & your Glock so I can help you find the problem.

I have Tula & Wolf. They may be the same but the color of the prime is different.

GLOOB

December 20, 2011, 06:56 PM

As long as you do not squash them to the point you disturb the priming mixture, they will go off.
In bds's tests, it looks like some priming compound is tougher than others.
Yes, I agree. I believe that CCI and Win primers are practically immune to being seated too hard. I believe Tulammo are not. I also believe Tulammo priming compound isn't as sensitive as most American primers and some guns won't like them. I still like and trust Tulammo cuz I know how to seat them and which of my guns will fire them.

That's not to say that they don't ever make a bad batch. BDS might have gotten unlucky.

No. I just seat them fully 99% of the time. Occasionally there will be a combination of brass and primers I stop short of a full stroke on.
This is foreign to me. My Breechlock doesn't stop when I put in a primer. I can go too far with even a domestic primer, if I wanted to put in the extra effort. Seems to me, if a press or priming tool was designed to go "all the way" and seat by depth, that it would be a simple matter to design one that indexes off the head of the brass. Otherwise, you're spacing off the rim thickness and/or shellholder fit. With the exception of systems that prime on the upstroke, anyway. There, I dunno what you're spacing off of, cuz I haven't used one. I've never heard of anyone simply pressing the lever all the way until it stops, except on a progressive press that has an adjustable depth stop. And even there, with different headstamps, you'll get a different primer depth on most of 'em.

Match ammo or plinking fodder, it's no extra effort for me to actually feel the primer seat. I can make over 200 rds an hr on a single stage press with unprepped brass, priming by feel. It might take an extra 10th of a second per rd?

kingmt

December 20, 2011, 09:25 PM

bds
Will you try some at -.001" flush.

GLOOB

December 21, 2011, 01:50 AM

For the heck of it, I measured the depth of some of my recent ammo.

As stated before, WIN depth was between 0.000" and 0.0025", with perhaps around half of them at exactly 0.000"

FC brass seated the deepest. This was evident by eye and by feel, even without the calipers. These seated between 0.004" and 0.006", limited sample. Primers not flattened. Just seated deeper. Hmm, interesting. IIRC, the 2 failurse I had from deep seated/crushed primers were in FC brass. I got them all the way to 0.015" deep.

CBC brass measured between 0.002" and 0.004"

Lone Speer case: 0.0015"

As noted before, my S&B brass had the most variation and the flattest cups. I think it's obvious that the tighter pockets contribute to both phenomena. Depth of a decent sample varied between 0.001"-0.007". I've never had a failure in S&B brass, BTW. Despite the primer crushing before seating, the anvil is not pressing against anything while the crushing occurs.

I didn't have any PMC primed, but I had 21 cases prepped and trimmed for my 9x18 SD ammo. So I went ahead and primed those with the typical care I would use for my SD ammo. Out of 21 rounds, 2 measured 0.0005" depth. The other 19 all measured 0.000". FTR, I'd rate the priming "hardness" as plain average. No difficulty. Easy to seat with very little deformation of the cup just on the edge of a few of the primers. No obvious deformation on the rest.

These are Tulammo SPP, batch 32-10. I measured one primer. Last time I did it, I measured several, and all were the same. The cup height measured 0.110". The diameter measured 0.1745".

I don't remember exactly how many of these primers I've fired. I know I'm on at least my third box, probably 4th. And I've had a total of 4 failures. 2 were in a Ruger GP100 in DA mode (which I rarely shoot. probably only 100rounds through this particular gun, and of that only a small fraction in DA), and 2 were in 9mm from my first batch and had badly crushed primers with a depth of 0.015". I've been through at least 1.5k in the rest of my firearms since that mishap without a single incident.

These measurements are using the depth gauge on an electronic caliper that rounds to the nearest half a thou, FTR.

Walkalong

December 21, 2011, 07:30 AM

This is foreign to me. My Breechlock doesn't stop when I put in a primer. I can go too far with even a domestic primer
With the RCBS hand primer it "dead ends", so you cannot go any farther. Due to wear my large primer rod was no longer seating the primers deep enough, so I made a new slightly longer one (http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=7685091&postcount=4). Works great.

The Sinclair priming tool dead ends as well. One controls seating depth with shims supplied with the tool.

USSR

December 21, 2011, 09:16 AM

With the RCBS hand primer it "dead ends", so you cannot go any farther.

+1. Having a seating tool that can crush a primer flat as a pancake doesn't appeal to me.

Don

shooter_from_show-me

December 21, 2011, 09:18 AM

I bought a case of 5k Tula SPP @ a gun show for $95 and these primer cups are copper colored. So far I have not had any issues with this lot. BUT they are alot more difficult to seat especially in WIN brand 9mm brass.

I am averaging around .117"-.118" (with a few variations to .115"-.120") for primer pocket depths for small primer cases (9mm/40S&W). I am measuring .119" for Winchester/Magtech SP primer height and .118" for Tula/PMC SP primers (actual cup height without the anvil feet were same at .109" for Winchester/Tula SP).

This means, depending on primer pocket depth variations, seating primer flush may not set the anvil against the priming compound. Use of .004" below flush is a reference mark for me. When I hand prime the cases, I do it by feel with a QC check by running my finger tip over the seated primer to ensure it is below flush. As I seat the primer, I will initially feel the primer/anvil feet hit the bottom of the primer pocket, then a slight more resistance as the anvil feet is pressed inside the cup and anvil is set against the priming compound.

Because there are variations in primer pocket depths (say .120" deep pocket with shorter .118" height Tula SP primer, to include the anvil feet), flush seating primers may not always ignite. Seating primers to .004" below flush ensures there are no high primers and anvils are properly set against the priming compound.

Forster website has a nice illustration on primer seating depths (scroll down to "Primer On Primer Seating" on the link - http://www.forsterproducts.com/store.asp?pid=24822

The primer at the bottom shows properly seated primer below flush with the anvil feet inside the primer cup and tip of anvil in contact with the priming compound. The middle picture shows a "high" primer with anvil feet below the bottom of primer cup (intial strike on the primer will seat the primer deeper and subsequent strike(s) may ignite the primer). The top picture shows a "crushed/flattened" primer cup with anvil tip piercing the priming compound, possibly rendering the primer useless.

What that old pic and article are saying, is that you want the anvil "loaded up, with the cup at the bottom of the primer pocket.

The legs of the anvil should be should be even with the cup after seating, with the cup at the bottom of the primer pocket, but not to the point of damaging the cup. Such as the anvil pushing up hard enough to dent the cup, or the cup starting to deform from being pushed too far. This is way past what I call seating primers "hard". My seating primers "hard" does not damage them. Maybe "solid" is a better word.

GLOOB

December 21, 2011, 12:23 PM

With the RCBS hand primer it "dead ends", so you cannot go any farther.
+1. Having a seating tool that can crush a primer flat as a pancake doesn't appeal to me.
It appeals to me! That just means my priming system has enough travel and leverage to handle anything it might need to handle. What happens when you get a deep primer pocket like an FC case that doesn't seat until beyond 0.006"? What's the point of having "feel" on a hand priming tool? This sounds very strange to me. I understand that there might be a MAX depth attainable with any particular priming tool/shellholder/rim thickness combination. But I'd think that max depth would be well beyond what is desirable in most cases.

When I end up with flush seated primers, it's because that's where the primer seats, not because I'm trying to seat them flush. I'd obviously wish there were more margin for error, lest a primer stick out and cause a slamfire. But the primer and pocket decide where the seating occurs, not me. Not a depth stop.

Edit:
Your primer strike sure does look light, BDS. Now there's rumor going around that some of the Gen3 Glock 9mm's were made slightly out of spec with the result being erratic ejection due to extractors that are too loose which allow the case to drop down during ejection. This would also allow the cartridge to move forward while being struck. Perhaps the PMC brass has a slightly thinner rim and/or a shorter length, allowing it to get too far away from the breechface for a solid enough strike with this brand of primer. On my own Glock 19, there is a generous amount of slop compared with my G27. The extractor claw allows a significant amount of air gap between the case head and breechface. And this is the gun where I did have the light strikes using deep seated primers that once upon a time. And afterall, your sig and G22 are popping these primers without issue.

I have noticed that if I swap my G27 extractor into my G19, this gap is lessened. If you're still up for more experimentation, I suggest you try that.

bds

December 21, 2011, 12:36 PM

Testing the primers seated flush was a good idea to rule out the concern over anvil tip piercing the priming compound at .004" below flush. And yes, to check for "high" primer, I did restrike the failed primers still with no ignition.

Keep in mind that all these test cases had their primer pockets cleaned. If there were significant amount of crud/residue at the bottom of the primer pockets, seating primers to crush/flattening cup depth (say .008" below flush) would allow the anvil tip to go higher into the priming compound.

Since many of us do not clean the primer pockets of semi-auto pistol cases, especially when loaded in progressive presses, primer cups may never be seated all the way to the bottom of the primer pockets, as crud/residue will prevent the primer cup from sliding all the way down to the bottom of the primer pocket and the cup flatten instead. So for some of us, seating primers hard may mean just crushing the cup flat.

At the present, my tentative suspicion for Tula SP primer misfire maybe due to harder/inconsistent hardness cup as the heat test indicated the priming compound was still active after 4 strikes to the cup. There may be other causes, and hopefully we'll get to the bottom of the "root cause" sooner or later. I just wanted to give Tula SP primers the THR "fair and objective" testing it warrants.

Having said that, so far, none of other brand primers have failed to ignite. :scrutiny::D

GLOOB

December 21, 2011, 01:25 PM

"root cause"

See the edit to my earlier post. It sure seems like your G17 could be part of the root cause, considering that your G22 and Sig pop these primers ok.

kingmt

December 21, 2011, 01:36 PM

My lot is 22-10. Maybe people having problems can also post there lot.

It might need its own thread.

bds

December 21, 2011, 01:44 PM

GLOOB, that's why I swapped out the striker from G22 and used it in G17 in post #94 and it still resulted in failed primer ignition. I can deprime the failed Tula SP primers and restrike them in G22 tonight.

I am planning to do more testing in G22.

GLOOB

December 21, 2011, 01:47 PM

Not striker. Extractor. If the extractor is looser in your G17 (and it is in my G19) that could result in a softer and shallower strike if the brass is shorter than the chamber. (And it almost always is).

So check to see how tight the extractor holds the brass in each respective gun. And see if swapping the extractor might help.
You might also attempt to measure the rim thickness of your PMC brass compared to the other brass. Also the length of the brass, too. If the brass is headspacing off the chamber, not the extractor, then perhaps your PMC brass is shorter.

Another thing you could try to eyeball is how far the striker protrudes from the breechface in each respective gun. Perhaps there's a noticeable difference, there, as well.

Master Blaster

December 21, 2011, 01:57 PM

Primers have to work reliably in any gun they are used in to be Good primers from my perspective. Tulas and Wolfs have issues that other brands don't have, mainly they have far more Duds. So unless you are using them for cheap plinking ammo avoid them.

JMHO YMMV

GLOOB

December 21, 2011, 02:01 PM

By using this logic, then CCI/WIN/REM primers are far less reliable than Federals, because some revolvers only shoot Federals. The CCI's in the same revolver have a lot of "duds."

See. You can't call these things "duds" if they work 100% in another gun. That's like saying .223 mil spec primers are unreliable, because you have a lot of "duds" when you shoot them out of your hunting rifle.

Some guns will only fire more sensitive primers. That doesn't necessarily make other primers any less reliable in other applications.

At the present, my tentative suspicion for Tula SP primer misfire maybe due to harder/inconsistent hardness cup as the heat test indicated the priming compound was still active after 4 strikes to the cup
Another example of faulty logic. If it was primer inconsistency, then it would be happening in all the brass in all the guns. It's not. It's very specific to one brass and one gun. So all you have determined is that Tula primers take a harder strike to ignite (no surprise. These aren't Federals), and for some reason your Glock 17 isn't striking your primers as good as your other guns. The fact that it primarily occurs with one particular headstamp actually demonstrates a high degree of CONSISTENCY of these primers.

So IF BDS's G22 lights 'em all 100%, and the G17 is only batting 90%, it's not because all the duds happened to occur in the G17. It means there aren't any duds. The G17 just isn't hitting them hard enough to be reliable.

bds

December 21, 2011, 02:15 PM

it wasn't just PMC case, Blazer case also failed to ignite. All the test cases were full-length resized on single stage press.

I haven't thought about the extractors but will include them in the test as well.

kingmt

December 21, 2011, 02:26 PM

I have had alot of CCI fail but never a Tula. I won't blame CCI because I may have been the problem because of something I missed.

GLOOB

December 21, 2011, 02:30 PM

it wasn't just PMC case, Blazer case also failed to ignite. All the test cases were full-length resized on single stage press.

Yes, you are quite correct. But if the trend continues, it will occur more often in certain headstamps. And as I have discussed, there's a reason why headstamp could have an effect on the strength/depth of the primer strike, particularly in a Gen3 Glock 9mm which has a trifecta of generous chamber cut, loose extractor, and short firing pin protrusion.

In fact, the more I think about it, the more I'm inclined to believe those two deep-seated duds I had weren't crushed duds, at all. My G19 striker probably just couldn't reach them to give 'em a good 'nuff strike.

bds

December 21, 2011, 04:44 PM

You could be right. There were some variations in primer pocket depths from .115" to .120". I could do a larger sampling of cases and retest using more consistent primer depth cases, like .118" deep.

GLOOB

December 21, 2011, 05:33 PM

I'd be much more interested to hear what happens after you swap your Glocks' extractors. A primer that works only in certain headstamps is pretty useless (at least for an autopistol caliber). I have a hunch you might be able to get these primers 100% reliable in your G17, even in PMC and Blazer brass.

floydster

December 21, 2011, 06:22 PM

All this primer talk is making me dizzy, I have been at the loading bench for over 50 years and in the last 4 years i have used 30,000 Wolf/Tula primers with nary a problem, and use these primers in all of my 26 guns at the present time.
If you gun is working as it should and you seat the primers like a man, you won't have any problems:)

greyling22

December 21, 2011, 06:57 PM

I found a tula small pistol primer with no anvil tonight. 1st instance out of several thousand.

4895

December 22, 2011, 03:47 PM

Lot 19-10

bds

December 31, 2011, 09:23 PM

OK, continuing from posts #94 and #98 for Tula SP primer testing in 45ACP cases with small primer pockets:

As many suggested for this phase of primer testing, instead of the "sterile" testing process I have used thus far by cleaning the primer pockets and seating the primers .004" below flush or just flush; I decided to use a more "typical" reloading process by not cleaning the primer pockets and seating them until they hit bottom.

Different head stamp small primer pocket 45ACP cases (Federal, Blazer and Fiocchi) were tumbled in fine grit walnut media/NuFinish until they were clean (about 20 minutes) and deprimed/resized on C-H 205 single stage press and hand primed using Lee XR priming tool but this time I seated them until I "felt" them bottoming out and gave a little bit more push on the handle to ensure the anvils were set. The test rounds were loaded with MBC 12 BHN 200 gr SWC (Bullseye #1) and 5.0 gr of W231/HP-38 loaded to 1.245" OAL (due to very short start of rifling in Sig 1911) and .472"-.473" taper crimp. The reloading process was finished on the Pro 1000 using Pro Auto Disk powder measure and combination bullet seat/taper crimp die.

To further expand the testing, I decided to take M&P45 and PT145, both striker fired pistols along with the Sig 1911.
http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=155811&stc=1&d=1325383979

Range Report:
Several hundred rounds were tested. All of the Tula SP primers ignited without any failure, even in M&P45 and PT145 while producing accurate shot groups. These are primer indents of M&P45 and PT145.
http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=155813&stc=1&d=1325384371

These are primer indents of Sig 1911.
http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=155814&stc=1&d=1325384386

Well, I guess not cleaning the primer pockets maybe the key? :eek::D ... just kidding.

I will repeat the testing in 9mm and 40S&W cases without cleaning the primer pockets and seating them by "feel" for the next round of testing.

Happy New Year!!!

GLOOB

January 4, 2012, 10:28 PM

What a turn of events. Went shooting, today. Now, I'm the one having duds.

I shot 150 rds, 100 of which were recently manufactured reloads, through my FNX40. I had 1 light strike. The primer looked fine. It was seated deep. Probably 0.004" or more by eyeball, but not crushed in the slightest. CBC case. Never had a misfire in this gun or with this brass before. Rechambered it and got another click. Had true DA, so I pulled the trigger a half dozen more times for the heck of it. The primer indent is now rediculously deep, and no bang.

I also brought the G19. Shot 300+ reloads through it, and I had 1 dud. Primer looked fine, again. Rechambered it and fired it a second time with no luck. Primer indent looked rather pathetic. I think it's time to clean my Glock, just in case. :)

That's 7 total failures I've had with Wolf and Tulammo primers. I think 2 were seated too deep for my Glock, in all honesty. But that still leaves 5 potential duds. 2 in my GP100, 1 in my FNX40, 1 in my G19 and 1 Wolf .223 in my MSAR.

Incidentally:
I also had my first magazine malfunction with the G19 using a KCI mag. I noticed off the bat that the top rd appeared like it was sitting too high. Removed it and put it back in, and it still looked too high. I had a mag induced failure to feed on the third round of that magazine. I also found 2 of my intact reloads on the ground where I shoot when I was policing my brass at the end of the day. I load the mags in another area, 12 feet away. So I am guessing a couple rounds jumped out of the mag, somehow. Maybe during a mag change while slidelocked?

Also incidentally:
I had a couple pieces of 9x18 brass sneak into my 9x19 bin. They got sized for parabellum before I noticed, so I decided to load 'em as 9x19 and bring 'em along so I could fire-size them closer to 9x18 dimensions. I mixed them in with my first G19 mag to see if they would cause any malfunction, and they fed and fired just fine.

*Edit:
Measured the depth of the primers after I got home. Both primers were around 0.009" deep. The 9mm was in an R-P case. These were both seated a bit deeper than average, but nothing too bad IMO.

bds

February 22, 2012, 06:27 AM

Update from post #113.

It's been almost 2 months of further testing with Tula SP primers (2000+ rounds) and I have continued the "dirty" testing of not cleaning the primer pockets and seating them flush, .004" below flush, crush depth/.008" below flush in 9mm, 40S&W and 45ACP SP cases.

I also expanded the pistols used to include G17, G22, G27, G36, M&P40, M&P45, PT145, Sig 1911, RIA 1911. Two coworkers just bought G27 and G36 and I also included them in the test.

My G17, G22 and G27 slides were also completely stripped down to individual components (even the striker assemblies were disassembled) and thoroughly cleaned with care given to the bottoms of striker tube channels to ensure there was absolutely no packed fouling deposit at the bottom. QC was done by scraping the bottom of striker tube channels until metal surface was seen. Care was also given to ensure the extractors were free of accumulated fouling gunk.

In addition, I talked to several other reloaders and comparison reference loads were also tested using various lots of Winchester/CCI SP primers along with Magtech/PMC SP primers I have (1000+ rounds).

At this point, I feel that I have given this particular lot of silver colored Tula SP primers more than sufficient opportunities to ignite in various pistols, cases and seating depths. I have considered replacing the strikers in my Glocks but since they ignited all the other brand/lot of primers, I am not so sure that it's striker-related. I still think that the failure to ignite issue is based more on harder primer cup than anything else - it's odd because the same Glocks have no problem igniting Tula .223/military primers that are supposed to have harder cups ... :scrutiny::uhoh:

Next, I am planning to continue my primer testing using Tula .223 primers in the same Glocks that I experienced failure to ignite with Tula SP primers.

Master Blaster

February 22, 2012, 08:27 AM

By using this logic, then CCI/WIN/REM primers are far less reliable than Federals, because some revolvers only shoot Federals. The CCI's in the same revolver have a lot of "duds."

See. You can't call these things "duds" if they work 100% in another gun. That's like saying .223 mil spec primers are unreliable, because you have a lot of "duds" when you shoot them out of your hunting rifle.

Some guns will only fire more sensitive primers. That doesn't necessarily make other primers any less reliable in other applications.

When I hit the primer 4 or 5 times, and the firing pin strike looks like its 3/4 of the way through the primer and its still does not fire that's what I call a dud.
Out of 5000 or so Wolf/ Tula primers I have loaded and fired I have had about 25 complete duds. Thats an astronomical number to me, and makes them unreliable for serious purposes. They are also harder to seat and so if not completely seated, two hits to fire, that's also unacceptable when it happens even 1 time per hundred as other primers I use DO NOT HAVE THIS PROBLEM.

lono

February 22, 2012, 10:47 PM

I have shot 2000 small pistol primers in 92FS 9mm without one failure. I have also shot 1000 large pistol primers in 1911 45acp without one failure. I plan to buy Tulla primers as long as I can get them for 40% less than other brands.

frankge

February 23, 2012, 08:52 AM

I have loaded over 20k of these primers now... also been using Tula .223 primers too. I experienced light strikes in my G34 which I shoot USPSA with. 13lb recoil spring, 4lb striker, stock striker. 1 in 50 failures. I changed the stock striker to the ZEV4 skeletonized (lighter) with an elongated tip. Now if it's a misfire I can always track it down to a bad reload job on my part.

I'd use US primers in a second if they became more reasonable. MAybe they will be on sale when I need primers the next time through.

mgmorden

February 23, 2012, 09:23 AM

I've never used Tula's primers for reloading, but I have shot their live ammo and experienced duds from those. That has me scared to try to live primers.

Oddly enough, I've never had a dud from any reloaded round. I've typically used CCI or Winchester primers - occasionally Federal (never tried Remington). I DID find a CCI missing an anvil once but it was caught before I seated it. I'm currently working through a large case of Fioochi primers. Can't say that I've had any duds yet, but the priming compound isn't always the same color in them (ie sometimes its red, sometimes white), which doesn't instill confidence, but we'll see :).

bds

February 23, 2012, 09:54 AM

I have shot 30,000+ reloads with Wolf LP and Tula LP/SP primers and have experienced no failure with bronze/brass colored Wolf/Tula LP primers. I have also shot several thousand reloads with Tula LR/SR/.223 primers and no failure to ignite.

The failure to ignite has been with silver colored Tula SP primers only.

BTW, 15,000+ reloads with Magtech/PMC SP primers with no failure. Of course, 300,000+ Winchester and CCI pistol/rifle primers are continuing to fire without failure.

frankge, good info. Thanks! :D

GLOOB

February 23, 2012, 08:22 PM

I am also giving up on Tulammo SPP. I went through the first 3k without any issues. But the last 1k was really disappointing. I had at least 5 unexplained duds.

Next, I am planning to continue my primer testing using Tula .223 primers in the same Glocks that I experienced failure to ignite with Tula SP primers.
I've tried a couple mags worth of Wolf .223 primers. It was a Glock day, so they went in my G27. Over a third failed to ignite. I saved the rest of the 50 rds to try in my FNX, next trip.

PV still has some Wolf SR primers in stock, and I'm tempted to buy a whole bunch. But I think I'll just go with CCI 400's and 500's. They're reasonably priced, right now, and I've never had a failure with either of those, yet.

At this point, I feel that I have given this particular lot of silver colored Tula SP primers more than sufficient opportunities to ignite in various pistols, cases and seating depths. I have considered replacing the strikers in my Glocks but since they ignited all the other brand/lot of primers, I am not so sure that it's striker-related. I still think that the failure to ignite issue is based more on harder primer cup than anything else - it's odd because the same Glocks have no problem igniting Tula .223/military primers that are supposed to have harder cups ...

Next, I am planning to continue my primer testing using Tula .223 primers in the same Glocks that I experienced failure to ignite with Tula SP primers.
Update to post #115

"Firmly" seating Tula SP primers seemed to have decreased the incidents of failure to ignite. However, light strikes are continuing in various Glocks (mine and other shooters'). Below is a picture of Tula SP light primer strike in a "brand new" Glock 22. As to Tula .223 primers being used in my G22 with 9mm conversion barrel for 9mm Major load workup, no failure to ignite (and I thought .223 primer cups were harder than SP/SR ;)).

As to Tula .223 primers being used in my G22 with 9mm conversion barrel for 9mm Major load workup, no failure to ignite.
That right there makes me think there's some significant difference between Tula and Wolf primers, despite they're made in the same plant.

RussellC

August 7, 2014, 11:22 PM

Discussing this issue recently with Bds, he suggested I give some updated info. A few weeks ago Midsouth offered a 5000 primer promotion where no hazmat fee was charged. Among others, I bought 3000 Tula SPP as part of my 5000. Bds brought up this thread, and the past difficulties with these SPP.

All of the primers I received were lot #3-14. The primers are all brass colored.
I used a Glock 17 9mm pistol to test these...this was one of the pistols that was giving trouble back in the beginning of this thread.

I have only gone through a couple hundred so far, but I have not had a single dud yet. I mentioned this to one of my gunshop guys, and he told me he uses Tula SPP by the thousands and hasnt had failures either. I will continue to monitor these primers and report if any result in a dud.

Hopefully, this problem has been put behind them. My gunshop guy did mention he had some trouble with Tula Large Rifle Primers in some rather old ammo, but no trouble with the SPP. I dont know how old "old" was in that case, but that's what he said. I will continue to report as I burn through these primers.

Russellc

Hondo 60

August 8, 2014, 12:01 AM

Over the last 3 years, I've used probably 8-10,000 tula small pistol primers.

They're a bit oversized, so they seat very tight.
If your case is even a tiny bit off, the primer will crush.

And I've had about a 1% failure rate, where the primer just will not fire.

I've also used probably 20,000 CCI 500s (also small pistol primers).
I had 1 fail - just this week.

If your ammo absolutely HAS TO FIRE, tula primers are not the best answer.
If it's for plinking, and you enjoy saving as much as $10/1,000 tula does it.

Tula primers also help extend the life of your brass - loose primer pockets are filled nicely with slightly over-sized primers.

bds

August 8, 2014, 01:11 AM

Thanks for the update Russell. It was just the nickel/chrome colored Tula SP primers I had issues with. No problems with 50,000+ Tula LP/LR/SR/.223 and Wolf LP brass/copper colored primers. They all have been 100%.

Perhaps, when my current supply of Tula SP primers run out, I may give the brass colored SP primers a try.

BTW, anyone tried S&B primers?

ljnowell

August 8, 2014, 06:05 AM

Thanks for the update Russell. It was just the nickel/chrome colored Tula SP primers I had issues with. No problems with 50,000+ Tula LP/LR/SR/.223 and Wolf LP brass/copper colored primers. They all have been 100%.

Perhaps, when my current supply of Tula SP primers run out, I may give the brass colored SP primers a try.

BTW, anyone tried S&B primers?

Yep, I actually have come to prefer the S&B primers. I bought some during the crunch and found that they seated smoothly and were pretty sensitive. I have one gun that is tuned to the max for competition and it will get 1 to 2 light strikes per hundred with Winchester or cci but is 100% with federal. I used a couple thousand S&B spp in it without a single failure.

I have also had a 1% or little higher failure rate out of some Tula spp. One brick would be perfect, the next would have multiple failures(not with the gun mentioned above, different ones). The LPP , no problems. No more Tula primers for me.

345 DeSoto

August 8, 2014, 07:16 AM

The only FTF with my M1 Carbine was with a silver colored Tula primer. NO FTF with any other Brand...

1911Teacher

August 8, 2014, 08:07 AM

I find S&B primers harder to insert into a case. They seem to have more squared shoulders than many other brands. They also stink when fired.

RussellC

August 8, 2014, 01:29 PM

The next batch I load will be from one of the other bricks, and so on. I will mix them up and report if any failures.

Russellc

16in50calNavalRifle

August 9, 2014, 02:21 AM

In several thousand rounds of handgun and 30 carbine, no problems with Tula primers so far (SPP and SRP). Only FTF in the 30 carbine was due to primer placement (had a few with CCI SRP also - this was in my first 100 rounds of reloaded ammo ..... learning curve).

Have a few thousand Tula LRPs (the "military" or harder version) I will use in my 30-06 reloads for the Garand.

Price/availability so far have been my only criteria for primer choice. Only "special" primer need I have is for a Colt snub that needs Federals (more sensitive) to avoid FsTF. ljnowell, interesting to hear that S&B SPPs perform for you in a light-striking gun. Will keep them in mind when my stock of Federals runs out.

jsab9191

August 9, 2014, 07:20 AM

Bought 10K in December 2012 (brass colored) . Failure rate has averaged 5% in the first 8K.
Never had a failed primer with CCI, Federal, or Winchester in the 35 years I've reloaded.

ljnowell

August 9, 2014, 11:11 AM

I find S&B primers harder to insert into a case. They seem to have more squared shoulders than many other brands. They also stink when fired.

They do have squared edges. I have never noticed any smell from them. Over the smell of powder and bullet lube I would think it would be nearly impossible to detect.

Jaymo

August 9, 2014, 11:47 AM

My only experience with Tula primers has been in Tula .45 ACP and 7.62x39 ammo.
No problems with either, except that both were dirty, dirty ammo.
They were fired from a Star M45 Firestar, an ATI 1911 Commander, and a CAI Romanian AK pistol. All have stock springs and are hammer fired.
Don't know what powder they used but it was D-I-R-T-Y.
Much like Atlanta Arms and Magtech used to be.

I've been fortunate enough to buy all my primers locally and use Federal, CCI, and Winchester.

RussellC

August 9, 2014, 12:12 PM

I usually use winchester or CCI...no problem acquiring them locally at all. But they were not 23.99 a thousand (with no hazmat fee either!). I have 10s of thousands of winchester and cci primers, just couldnt resist trying the Tulas (I only bought 3 thousand) at that price, along with waived hazmat fee that was the promotion at Midsouth at the time.

Russellc

bds

August 9, 2014, 12:30 PM

For me, CCI/Winchester/Magtech primers work better with Pro 1000 primer attachments. The slightly larger diameters of Tula/Wolf/Fiocchi primer cups are a pain in the butt at times to work reliably with Pro 1000, especially with once-fired brass and tighter primer pockets (Tula/Wolf/Fiocchi and once-fired S&B/RWS are "no-go" for me).

But if your brass has enlarged primer pockets, they work well. ;)

Now that I am reloading on Dillon 650, my primer selection criteria may change.

So I guess depending on the reloading platform and the size of your primer pockets, your primer selection may vary.

GLOOB

August 13, 2014, 08:03 PM

I haven't reached the 1k mark, yet. But S&B primers have worked 100% for me. They seat nicely. And they get the award for being the prettiest primers I have ever used. My reloads have never looked so much like factory ammo.

I didn't know Fiocchi also made primers. I have some Fiochhi 45ACP ammo, and the primers look exactly the same as S&B primers. I wonder if they're made at the same factory.

I've yet to have a failure with S&B or Fiocchi factory ammo, either. Well, there was one squib with the S&B, but the primer definitely went off.

LeftyTSGC

August 14, 2014, 08:22 AM

I have used TulAmmo LP and TulAmmo LP Magnum at least 2K each without any problems. I recently found 2K of TulAmmo SP that i have not tried yet.:D

I use a Dillon SDB and do not have any problems loading them. I primarily load them in .45LC and 9MM.:)

What i have found, when i encountered some primer seating issues, is that it was the Brass not the primers. Some primer pockets are slightly different which can cause a problem.:scrutiny:

Waiting to see how the SPP's work.:rolleyes:

kostner

August 16, 2014, 10:18 PM

Have used many in my AR without any problems. It was the great price I got online that persuaded me to buy.

Dudedog

August 17, 2014, 11:16 PM

No problems with thier 9mm Nato ones in my Springfield XD subcompact or Taraus PT99. (2000 used, but went back to CCI, bought these when they were all I could get)

Using the 5.56 (small rifle maganum) for my .223 in anAR and a Mini14 no problems yet. (2000 used)

RussellC

September 27, 2014, 02:53 PM

Well, I finally hit a dud with the Tula small pistol primers. No light primer strike, big old dent from the Glock 30S.

At first I thought I had loaded a squib, but the bullet was still all together. Opening it up revealed powder in there all right...usually without bullet, it would be lodged 1/2 way down the barrel. Double check of the barrel showed it free of course. First dud after several hundred. I did not try to fire it a second time, maybe I should have?

Russellc

1KPerDay

September 30, 2014, 01:28 PM

Last batch of loads I had quite a few duds (relatively) with Tula SPP. I have gone through 8K small and about 3K large... I won't be buying them again unless nothing else is available (which is why I bought them to begin with).

CCI and Win have given me no problems I can recall.

1KPerDay

September 30, 2014, 01:29 PM

I did not try to fire it a second time, maybe I should have?
I would have just out of curiosity. Out of 4 in one range session for me, only one went off upon re-strike.

bds

September 30, 2014, 05:03 PM

Well, I finally hit a dud with the Tula small pistol primers. No light primer strike, big old dent from the Glock 30S
Thanks for posting an update. I thought the new bronze/brass colored Tula SP primers were reliable but will keep an eye on your progress to see how they continue to perform.

For those not familiar, there were some lot # of Tula SP primers sold few years back with nickel/silver colored primers that were determined to have harder cups that resulted in some light primer strikes/shallow indents and no primer ignition, even after multiple hits from hammer/strikers.

I thought this issue was resolved when Russell bought new lot # of Tula SP primers with bronze/brass colored primer cups.

Last batch of loads I had quite a few duds (relatively) with Tula SPP. I have gone through 8K small and about 3K large... I won't be buying them again unless nothing else is available (which is why I bought them to begin with).

CCI and Win have given me no problems I can recall.
Agreed on all accounts. If I can find where I put that thing, I will post a pic. Large glock strike however...
russellc